Abstract
Plastic fibers are ubiquitous in daily life with additives incorporated to improve their performance. Only a few restrictions exist for a paucity of common additives, while most of the additives used in textile industry have not been clearly regulated with threshold limits. The production of synthetic fibers, which can shed fibrous microplastics easily (< 5 mm) through mechanical abrasion and weathering, is increasing annually. These fibrous microplastics have become the main composition of microplastics in the environment. This review focuses on additives on synthetic fibers; we summarized the detection methods of additives, compared concentrations of different additive types (plasticizers, flame retardants, antioxidants, and surfactants) on (micro)plastic fibers, and analyzed their release and exposure pathways to environment and human beings. Our prediction shows that the amounts of predominant additives (phthalates, organophosphate esters, bisphenols, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and nonylphenol ethoxylates) released from clothing microplastic fibers (MFs) are estimated to reach 35, 10, 553, 0.4, and 568 ton/year to water worldwide, respectively; and 119, 35, 1911, 1.4, and 1965 ton/year to air, respectively. Human exposure to MF additives via inhalation is estimated to be up to 4.5–6440 µg/person annually for the above five additives, and via ingestion 0.1–204 µg/person. Notably, the release of additives from face masks is nonnegligible that annual human exposure to phthalates, organophosphate esters, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances from masks via inhalation is approximately 491–1820 µg/person. This review helps understand the environmental fate and potential risks of released additives from (micro)plastic fibers, with a view to providing a basis for future research and policy designation of textile additives.
Graphical Abstract
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Fibers are ubiquitous polymers in daily life. Common fiber products include clothes, carpets, face masks, etc. There are mainly three types of fibers: natural fibers (cotton, wool), synthetic fibers (polyethylene terephthalate (polyester), polyamide (nylon), acrylic, polyurethane (spandex), polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, etc.), and artificial fibers (rayon, viscose fiber, cellulose acetate, etc.). Global fiber production was about 109 million tons in 2020, of which synthetic fibers, natural fibers, and artificial fibers account for about 62%, 32%, and 6%, respectively, and the synthetic fiber production is estimated to approach 100 million t/y by 2030 (Pepper 2021). During manufacturing, different additives are incorporated into these textiles to improve their performance for different applications.
The definition of “microplastic” refers to plastic particles < 5 mm in size. The shape of microplastics includes fragments, fibers, and beads (Zhao et al. 2022). Fiber is the predominant shape of microplastics detected in both the atmospheric and aquatic environment (Lin et al. 2018; Liu et al. 2019b; Su et al. 2018). Fibrous microplastics, i.e., microplastic fibers (MFs), refer to synthetic fibers, including polyethylene terephthalate, polyamide, acrylic, polypropylene, etc. MFs are mainly released during use and wear of synthetic textile products and also become the main source of secondary microplastics in the environment. Microfibers have a broader definition than MFs, which contain both natural and synthetic fibers smaller than 5 mm. Microfibers in the air mainly originate from drying of textiles, daily wear and tear, and solid waste incineration (De Falco et al. 2020; Dris et al. 2016; Liu et al. 2019a), while those in aquatic environment mainly originate from activities such as the washing of textiles and use of fishing nets (Napper and Thompson 2016; Xue et al. 2020).
The most common additives are dyes, flame retardants, plasticizers, antibacterial agents, antistatic agents, antioxidants, etc. (Rovira and Domingo 2019). Some chemicals on textiles have been restricted or banned according to the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals), including phthalates (bis (2–ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), restricted concentration < 0.1%), bisphenol A (BPA, restricted concentration < 0.02% for thermal paper), nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPE, restricted concentration < 0.01%), flame retardants (tris (2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate (TRIS)), and polybromobiphenyls (PBB), which should not be used in textiles contacting with the skin (Schäfer and Herter 2021). However, there is a wide variety of additives up to more than twenty thousand (https://polymer-additives.specialchem.com/). With the emergence of more and more novel additives (e.g., synthetic phenolic chemicals) (Tan et al. 2021; Wu et al. 2019), most of the additives have not been reasonably controlled and studied. In most cases, additives are physically rather than chemically bound to the plastic polymer (Hahladakis et al. 2018). Thus, MFs can release additives to the surrounding environment easily during the process of laundry, abrasion, and transport (Akhbarizadeh et al. 2021; Hahladakis et al. 2018). When MFs enter organisms, additives will be released and migrate out. In such cases, the bioaccumulation of pollutants can be altered with the presence of MFs especially in above-fugacity scenario (Li et al. 2022).
Many studies have focused on the release of MFs from synthetic textile products; however, little attention has been paid to the “trojan horse” effects of MFs for additives. The objectives of this paper are to (1) overview the extraction and quantification methods of additives on textiles and MFs; (2) summarize the types and concentrations of additives on both traditional (i.e., clothes) and emerging MFs contributors (i.e., face masks); (3) analyze the migration and release capability of these additives; (4) and finally, estimate the annual release of additives together with MFs into aquatic and atmospheric environment, and the mass of additives inhaled and ingested into human body through the carrier of MFs.
Analytical Methods for Additives on (Microplastic) Fibers
In this section, we mainly introduce the pretreatment methods (especially additive extraction methods) and analytical techniques of the predominant plastic additives, including plasticizers, antioxidants, flame retardants, and surfactants (Fig. 1).
Sample Pretreatment and Extraction
Pretreatment of Fiber Products
For the extraction of plasticizers, antioxidants, and surfactants on synthetic textile products, solvent extraction is the most common method (Kim et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2019a). Ultrasonic extraction (USE) and microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) have the advantages of high extraction efficiency, short time consumption, low solvent amount, and extensive adaptability (Khan and Jahangir 2020; Kim et al. 2016; La Nasa et al. 2021; Llompart et al. 2019). For instance, USE can be effectively applied in the extraction of phthalates (PAEs) from polyethylene films and synthetic antioxidants from disposable face masks, with recovery rates of 83.2–116.9% and 51–113%, respectively (Kim et al. 2016; Liu and Mabury 2021). Accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) is another prominent method for organic pollutants extraction from sediment, which has not been widely used for textiles yet (Giergielewicz-Możajska et al. 2001; Hu et al. 2020). Additionally, some conventional solvent extraction methods, such as Soxhlet extraction, can also be used with recovery rates of up to 90% or more; however, it is often time-consuming (more than four hours) (Kim et al. 2016; Li et al. 2015).
In addition to the solvent extraction methods, direct qualitative determination techniques are emerging in recent years, such as X-ray fluorescence (XRF), total fluorine (F) analysis technique, and inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). For instance, bromine (Br) and phosphorus (P) contents can be screened in fiber products with XRF and ICP-OES (Negev et al. 2018; Petreas et al. 2016; Young et al. 2021). The total fluorine (F) analysis technique can be conducted before the extraction of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to screen samples containing F quickly (Muensterman et al. 2022; Schellenberger et al. 2022). After the USE step of PFAS, some researches also apply solid phase extraction (SPE) to eliminate matrix compound interference and further concentrate samples (Gremmel et al. 2016; Muensterman et al. 2022).
Pretreatment of Microplastic Fibers
Currently, there are limited methods that specifically target additives extraction from MFs. The bottleneck of additives’ extraction from MFs is mainly because of the mass of fiber samples collected from the natural environment is often too low to meet the detection limits of instruments. Recently, Sorensen et al. (2021) proved that when the collected MFs were heavier than 0.1 g, the additives on MFs can be successfully extracted by the USE and quantified.
The pretreatment methods of microplastic particles can provide referential experiences for MFs. Some pretreatment methods, i.e., Soxhlet extraction and USE methods for microplastics can be applied for MF additives extraction. For instance, Zhang et al. (2018) extracted PAEs and organophosphorus esters (OPEs) from microplastic particles (0.01–0.5 g) by the Soxhlet extraction method with dichloromethane (DCM). Besides, Rani et al. (2017) extracted the antioxidants (Irganox 1010, Irganox 1076, 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol (BHT)) from plastic powders by the USE method with DCM. In addition to conventional extraction methods, direct analysis in real-time high-resolution mass spectrometry (DART-MS) can be used as a rapid fingerprinting method to screen microplastic additives. The complex mixture of polymer degradation products (i.e., “chemical fingerprints” of environmental microplastics) resulted from thermal desorption and pyrolysis can reflect the composition of both the polymers and the additives, which has been successfully used to detect plasticizers and antioxidants in microplastics (Zhang et al. 2020d). Of note, this method can preliminarily identify the presence of some additives, but it cannot be used for accurate quantification. In the future, more studies should be carried out on developing sensitive novel extraction or determination methods for trace contaminants in MFs.
Extraction Solutions Selection
For extraction of plasticizers, antioxidants, and flame retardants on fibers, traditional extractants include DCM, acetone, ethyl ether, acetonitrile, n-hexane, and methanol. (Abdallah et al. 2017; Freire et al. 2019; Fu et al. 2012; Hajiouni et al. 2022; Negev et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2011). The mixture of hexane and acetone is the most common extraction solution. For example, n-hexane/acetone (1:1) was used to extract 15 PAEs from children’s clothes, resulting in high recovery rates ranging from 81.9 to 107%; and this recipe has also been successfully applied to extract 39 BFRs and 16 OPEs from children’s sleeping nap mats (made of polyurethane) (Stubbings et al. 2018; Tang et al. 2020). For extraction of surfactants like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), methanol is commonly used (Muensterman et al. 2022; Schellenberger et al. 2022; Zheng and Salamova 2020). Since PFAS consists of a large number of substances, there are also different extraction solutions and analytical methods for volatile and nonvolatile PFAS, respectively (Table 2). For volatile PFAS (fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs)), ethyl acetate and n-hexane can be used as extraction solutions, while methanol and acetone/acetonitrile can be a choice for nonvolatile PFAS, such as perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) and perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFSAs) (Gremmel et al. 2016; Vestergren et al. 2015).
In addition to the traditional extractants mentioned above, some unconventional extraction solutions are also gradually applied. For extraction of phthalate plasticizers, tetrahydrofuran (THF) is recommended by the ISO 14389: 2014 (Wang et al. 2019b) and the Chinese national standard (Textile—Determination of the phthalate content—Tetrahydrofuran method (in Chinese), GB/T 20388–2016). Some studies prove that the THF extraction for PAEs usually exhibits better performance than other solvents, with higher recovery rate of 96.7–110.5% than that of methyl tert–butyl ether (MTBE) (38.3–58.0% recovery) or toluene (62.0–83.8%) (Al–Natsheh et al. 2015; Khan and Jahangir 2020).
Moreover, extractants that enable fibers to be “dissolved” exhibit better extraction efficiency than traditional extractants. Miyake et al. (2017) developed a novel complete dissolution extraction method, i.e., using 25% 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoro-2-propanol (HFIP)/chloroform as extractant to extract 18 brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and 15 phosphorus flame retardants (PFRs) in polyester curtains. By applying the complete dissolution method, more flame retardants were extracted than that via the conventional USE method using toluene or acetone (only 0.5–10% of those measured by the complete dissolution method). Similarly, Li and Kannan (2018) compared two extraction solutions of 25% HFIP/chloroform and acetone/DCM (v/v, 1:4); the former one showed up to 286 times higher extraction efficiency than the latter one. The two examples above confirm that HFIP can well dissolve fibers, such as polyester, nylon, and spandex. Future experiments should focus more on this solvent to gain a better extraction effect.
Extraction Time Selection
The extraction time varies largely among different extraction methods. USE uses small amounts of solvents and allows batch processing of multiple samples. When the additives on fibers are extracted by ultrasonication, the extraction process is usually repeated at least twice, with extraction time ranging from 30 to 60 min (Abdallah et al. 2017; Khan and Jahangir 2020; Wang et al. 2019a). It has been found that for polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) extraction from textiles, 30 min is the optimal extraction time, since there is no significant change in the recovery rate beyond 30 min (Abdallah et al. 2017). MAE also has a relatively shorter extraction time of about 15–30 min (Sanchez–Prado et al. 2010). In contrast, Soxhlet extraction method requires longer time, usually at least 4 h for each extraction, making it more costly (Kim et al. 2016; Li et al. 2015; Xu 2021). ASE owns the advantage of high efficiency and automation, with the extraction time of about 15–20 min per sample (Giergielewicz-Możajska et al., 2001). However, ASE cannot be used for batch extraction and may take longer time in case of large number of samples. We summarize the appropriate extraction methods for four additives (Table 1).
Instrumental Analysis
Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC–MS) and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC–MS) are widely used for quantification of additives extracted from synthetic textiles. GC–MS is especially suitable for additives with low boiling point and good thermal stability. Bernard et al. (2017) compared eight different analytical methods for determination of plasticizers and found that GC–MS possessed higher sensitivity (LOD values ranging from 0.03–0.5 µg/ml) than other methods. LC–MS determination of pollutants is not limited by boiling point. Thus, it can be used to analyze large molecule substances with poor thermal stability and weak-volatilization ability, such as flame retardants like tri(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate (TEHP), triphenyl phosphate (TPHP), trimethylphenyl phosphate (TMPP), nonvolatile PFAS, etc. (Lorenzo et al. 2016; Muensterman et al. 2022). Tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) realizes selective reaction monitoring (SRM), which greatly reduces the noise level and improves selectivity in the analysis of complex sample matrices (Wang et al. 2020). Currently, high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC–MS/MS), and ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) have become very important techniques for the analysis of flame retardants, novel synthetic antioxidants, and surfactants, because of their good selectivity and sensitivity, high precision, and low detection limits (Abdallah 2016; Bastiaensen et al. 2018; Gremmel et al. 2016; Guo et al. 2016; Vestergren et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2019a; Wu et al. 2019). The ionization of molecules has an important influence on the final quantification. Electron ionization (EI) is very suitable for polar chemicals (Bourdeaux et al. 2016; Stubbings et al. 2019). However, EI is not suitable for high molecular weight chemicals due to the fragments’ difficulty for volatilization and poor thermal stability after ionization. Some soft ionization techniques such as electrospray ionization (ESI) and atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) interfaces can effectively solve this limitation (Wang et al. 2020). For example, Halloum et al. (2017) found that the detection limits of GC-APCI-MS/MS were 2.5–25 and 50–100 times lower than those of GC-EI-MS/MS, respectively, for the quantification of non-brominated OPEs and brominated OPEs.
In recent years, emerging quantification techniques that do not require pretreatment have become increasingly popular (Anuar et al. 2022; Jin et al. 2022; Xu et al. 2022). Thermal desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (TD-GC–MS) and pyrolysis gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Py-GC–MS) exhibit the advantages of high sensitivity, automation, and solvent interferences-free (Humbert et al. 2022). TD-GC–MS has been found to be effective for the quantification of brominated flame retardants (especially for BDE-209) in curtains and car interiors (Shin and Baek 2012); meanwhile, Py-GC–MS has been increasingly used for the detection of PAEs, flame retardants, ultraviolet stabilizers, and bisphenols. (Akoueson et al. 2022; Deng et al. 2022).
There are also some new analytical methods, such as time of flight mass spectrometry (TOF–MS), electron probe, and environmental forensic microscopy. The principle of TOF–MS is to measure the time for ions to reach the detector from the ion source. The heavier the ion mass, the longer the time to reach the receiver; and vice versa. As a result, ions of different masses can be separated according to their specific m/z. The advantage of TOF–MS is the fast scan speed and high sensitivity. Ionas et al. (2015) have used the ambient high-resolution mass spectrometry (direct probe-TOF–MS) to qualitatively screen flame retardants in textiles (curtains and carpets). TOF–MS was capable of quickly screening BFRs and PFRs in positive and negative ion APCI modes with [M + H] and [M–Br + O]+–, respectively. Moreover, the environmental forensic microscopy is also suitable for investigation of Br distribution (originated from BFRs) on textile surface (Ionas et al. 2015). Nevertheless, environmental forensic microscopy is only recommended for the surface distribution analysis of additives with relatively high concentration. There are also techniques that can quickly screen out samples containing F. Some studies conducted the total F analysis by combustion ion chromatography (CIC) before the extraction of PFAS (Rodgers et al. 2022; Schellenberger et al. 2022). Total F concentration can also be measured by the particle-induced gamma emission (PIGE) technique (Muensterman et al. 2022; Xia et al. 2022). The advantage of CIC or PIGE technique is that total F concentration can be quickly obtained. However, these fast-screening techniques cannot avoid the interference of substances containing fluorine; therefore, they are used as preliminary screening methods. The commonly used extraction methods, solvents, time, and quantification equipment, as well as chemical recoveries for additives in fiber products are summarized (Table 2).
Occurrence of Additives on Plastic Fibers
The main processes in the textile production include sizing (improving the abrasion resistance of fibers), desizing (removing sizing chemicals from textiles), scouring (removing impurities from fibers), bleaching (removing unwanted colored matters), mercerizing (improving the strength and luster of textiles), dyeing & printing (adding colors or patterns to textiles) (Athira et al. 2018). To improve the softness, flame resistance, and stability of textiles, various additives and aids are incorporated. As a consequence, some of them, such as aromatic amines, plasticizers, flame retardants, phenolic antioxidants, surfactants, antimicrobial agents, ultraviolet stabilizers (benzotriazole), anti-wrinkling resins, heavy metals, etc., may remain in the clothes (Licina et al. 2019). PAEs, bisphenols, and OPEs have been widely detected in synthetic fibers (Fig. 2a) (Tang et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2019a; Xue et al. 2017).
The types of additives are closely related to textile material and functions. Plasticizers are one of the most widely used plastic additives; the addition amount can reach 10–70% (Hahladakis et al. 2018; Hermabessiere et al. 2017). Plasticizers are mainly used in polyurethane (PU) or PVC coating of textiles. In some cases, PVC can even contain 80% of plasticizers (Hahladakis et al. 2018). Clothing having abundant colors with rich prints and coats often exhibits higher concentrations of PAEs (Tang et al. 2020). Nylon (15,203 ± 10,382 ng/g) contains a higher PAEs concentration than polyester (9732 ± 6988 ng/g) (Fig. 2c). Tang et al. (2020) measured that total concentrations of 15 PAEs in children clothing (blends of polyester, nylon, and spandex) were 3.35–33.42 μg/g, indicating a moderate level of incorporated phthalates in plastics. REACH regulates that for toys or childcare articles, the individual or combined concentration of DEHP, DBP, BBP equal to or greater than 0.1% (by weight) (1 × 106 ng/g) should not be put on market (Negev et al. 2018). From the collected data (Fig. 2a), it can be seen that the concentration of major PAEs in the clothes does not exceed the standard (1 × 106 ng/g). Meanwhile, PAEs are widely detected in air particulate matter (Li and Wang 2015); in addition to additives remained during manufacturing, fiber fabrics may also adsorb and accumulate airborne plasticizers emitted by indoor furniture (Shi et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2020b).
Flame retardants are added to reduce the flammability of objects; the addition amount is 3–25% for BFRs and 0.7–3% for PFRs in plastic materials (Hahladakis et al. 2018). Synthetic fibers should be treated with flame retardants, because the molten drops caused by combustion may burn the skin and lead to the burning of combustible materials around (Bourbigot 2008). Since the ban or restriction of some traditional BFRs according to the Stockholm Convention (Wu et al. 2020), the global consumption of organophosphate flame retardants in textile is increasing yearly (from 186,000 t in 2001 to 680,000 t in 2015) (Pantelaki and Voutsa 2019; Reemtsma et al. 2008). The content of flame retardants in synthetic fibers is often higher than that in cotton fabrics. The average concentration of ∑20OPEs (1.52 × 103 ng/g) in synthetic fibers (polyester, nylon, vinyl) was higher than that in cotton fabrics (442 ng/g), triphenyl phosphate (TPhP), accounting for the highest percentage (40.2% of the total concentration) (Zhu et al. 2020). It is noticed that although the presence of BFRs (e.g., PBDEs) has been detected in textiles, such as carpets, curtains, and seat leather (Abdallah et al. 2017; Portet-Koltalo et al. 2021; Shin and Baek 2012), there are no available reports about BFRs on clothing according to our best knowledge. It may be explained that organophosphorus flame retardants (OPFRs) are more multi-functional, which can act as both flame retardants and plasticizers. On the other hand, some chlorinated OPEs contain both halogens and phosphorus (e.g., tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP), tris(2-chloroiso-propyl) phosphate (TCIPP)), which are versatile in flame retardant action, with less odor and lower toxicity (Pandit et al. 2020). In addition to the elimination of some traditional BFRs, the flame retardants in clothing are therefore dominated by OPFRs. Moreover, fibers may also adsorb semi-volatile flame retardants from the air, since electronic products in offices are sources of flame retardants in air (Fig. 3) (Saini et al. 2016a; Saito et al. 2007).
Antioxidants are used to delay the overall oxidative degradation of plastics, the addition amount of which is 0.05–3% in plastic materials (Hahladakis et al. 2018). Antioxidants include phenolic antioxidants (e.g., BPA, BPS, BHT, Irganox 1010, Irganox 1076) and organophosphite antioxidants (tris(4-nonyl-phenyl) phosphate (TNPP), tris(2,4-di-tertbutylphenyl) phosphite (AO168), etc.) (Hahladakis et al. 2018). The concentration of bisphenols is closely related to the type of the fibers; spandex exhibits higher levels of bisphenols, especially for fibers blended of nylon and spandex (Fig. 2e). Socks (blends of spandex, nylon, polyester, and cotton) are found to contain higher levels of PAEs and BPA than other clothing (Tang et al. 2020; Xue et al. 2017). Spandex is a typical elastic fiber widely used in stretchable clothing; the addition of bisphenols improves its flexibility (Bodaghi 2020). A study found that the mean concentration of ∑7 bisphenols in pantyhose made of 21–50% spandex (535,000 ng/g) was significantly higher than that in pantyhose made of 0–20% spandex (170,000 ng/g) (Li and Kannan 2018). Studies have also shown that polyester products contain more additives than cotton ones (Xue et al. 2017). Clothes made of polyester and spandex had high concentrations of bisphenols (1823 ng/g for BPA and 536 ng/g for BPS), while mean concentration of bisphenols (BPA + BPS) was only 21 ng/g in cotton clothes (Wang et al. 2019a). The use of synthetic phenolic antioxidants has gradually increased in recent years; synthetic antioxidants have been detected in disposable face masks (Liu and Mabury 2021). However, there are only few reports on synthetic antioxidants on clothing. Thus, more attention should be paid to the content of synthetic antioxidants in clothing fibers in the future.
To improve softness, smoothness, and water resistance of clothes, especially for functional garments, surfactants (e.g., per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), alkylphenol polyethoxylates (APEO), NPE) are often added during production process (Gremmel et al. 2016; Heydebreck et al. 2016; Holmquist et al. 2016; Licina et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2015). The environmental hazards of PFAS have been gradually recognized due to their environmental persistence and low degradability. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) have been listed in Stockholm Convention (Groffen et al. 2021). Exposure to PFAS poses various health risks, including effects on fertility, endocrine function, obesity of children, etc. (Espartero et al., 2022). The concentration of PFAS did not show significant difference among fiber types; the mean concentration in polyester (193 ± 268 ng/g) is higher than in nylon (98 ± 100 ng/g) (Fig. 2f). PFAS has also been detected in furniture textile products (e.g., curtain, carpet, table cloth) (Vestergren et al. 2015). A study indicated that the concentrations of PFOS in two carpet samples (0.74 µg/m2 and 1.04 µg/m2) approached or even exceeded the EU regulation (1 µg/m2) (Herzke et al. 2012). PFAS function as surfactants, fabrics with fluorinated coatings may release fewer fibers after washing; however, fluorinated wastewater has a negative impact on the environment (Schellenberger et al. 2019). NPE compounds are another cheap and common surfactants. NPE and their degradation products, nonylphenol, are typical endocrine disruptors, which can affect sperm quality and lead to cancer development (Noorimotlagh et al. 2017, 2020). A survey conducted by Greenpeace International in 2012 revealed that NPE compounds were the most frequently detected substances in 20 branded textile products, with a detection rate of 63% and median concentration of 5.2–1500 mg/kg (Brigden et al. 2012). For 8 luxury brands, the detection rate of NPE was 44%, with concentrations ranging from 1.7 to 760 mg/kg (Brigden et al. 2013). It can be seen that the concentrations of NPE in some clothes exceed the REACH standard (1 × 106 ng/g) (Fig. 2a). The concentrations of NPE in polyester (84,789 ± 179,215 ng/g) are higher than that in nylon (10,000 ng/g); the presence of spandex has no effect on NPE concentration (Fig. 2g). In addition, it has been found that the mean concentration of ∑20OPEs in water-repellent fabrics made of nylon or polyester (1940 ng/g) was significantly higher than that in conventional fabrics made of cotton or polyester (313 ng/g) (Zhu et al. 2020), suggesting that functional garments may contain more additives.
With the Covid-19 pandemic, face masks made of non-woven polypropylene (PP) or polyethylene terephthalate have become emerging MFs contributors to the environment (Fadare and Okoffo 2020; Wang et al. 2022). Chemicals such as antioxidants, plasticizers, and surfactants may be added during the manufacturing of face masks (Liu and Mabury 2021; Muensterman et al. 2022; Sungur and Gulmez 2015; Xie et al. 2022). Total concentrations of PAEs and synthetic antioxidants in face masks ranged from 115 to 37,700 ng/g and from 20.0 to 575 μg/g, respectively (Liu and Mabury 2021; Xie et al. 2022). DEHP, DnBP, DiBP, 2,4-di-tert-butyl-phenol (2,4-DTBP), pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate) (AO1010), and AO168 have been frequently detected in face masks (Liu and Mabury 2021; Xie et al. 2022). The antioxidant contents in face masks are quite high (Fig. 2b), while the types of antioxidants on face masks are different from those of clothes. Bisphenols are widely detected in clothes, while lower or undetectable levels of bisphenols are found in face masks. Only one study reported the presence of BPA in surgical masks leachates (0.8–3.2 μg/L) (Liu et al. 2022). This phenomenon may be attributed to high toxicity of bisphenols. Some other phenolic antioxidants such as BHT and butyl hydroxyanisole (BHA) may be relatively “safer,” which can even be used as food additives to extend the shelf life of fried foods (Liu and Mabury 2020; Wang et al. 2021). On the other hand, some novel antioxidants (e.g., AO168, AO1010) receive less attention and lack of effective regulatory measures.
Different types of face masks exhibit different additive concentrations (Fig. 2h). N95 masks contained more flame retardant OPEs and PAEs (OPEs:11.6 ± 10.3 µg/mask (2924.4 ± 2873.2 ng/g), PAEs: 2300 ± 150 to 5200 ± 800 ng/mask (556.0 ± 124.5 ng/g)) than surgical masks (OPEs:0.24 ± 0.27 µg/mask (93.6 ± 107.1 ng/g), PAEs: 55 ± 35–1700 ± 140 ng/mask (230.9 ± 236.6 ng/g)) (Fernandez–Arribas et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2022). However, this phenomenon has not been clearly interpreted. We speculate that this may be due to the higher filtering capacity of N95 masks for bacteria or particulate matter. The density of polypropylene in N95 masks is higher than in normal masks. Therefore, the manufacturing process is more complex, resulting in higher OPEs or PAEs levels. However, there are exceptions that not all N95 masks have higher additive levels. For instance, Muensterman et al. (2022) found that the total PFAS concentrations in surgical masks (46 µg/m2, converted to be 521.7 ng/g) were higher than that in N95 masks (15 µg/m2, converted to be 64.8 ng/g).
Compared with non-fiber plastics or microplastics, the contents of additives in plastic fibers are generally equivalent to the same order of magnitude or even higher. For example, the concentrations of 16 PAEs in PP take-out food containers were 1.62–8.62 μg/g, while the concentrations of 15 PAEs in clothing fibers were 3.35–33.42 μg/g (Han et al. 2021; Tang et al. 2020). Compared with PP fragments (Table 3), face mask fibers (made of PP) exhibit lower levels of phenolic antioxidants and higher levels of plasticizers such as PAEs.
Release of Additives from (Micro)Plastic Fibers
Release to Water
Washing of synthetic textiles is one of the most important routes for the release of additives from plastic fibers (Luongo et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2019a; Zheng and Salamova 2020). Abrasion of synthetic textiles during laundry is also an important source of microplastics released to aquatic environment (Siegfried et al. 2017). About 2.1 × 105 MFs could be released from polyester clothes during a single machine wash (Sillanpaa and Sainio 2017).
The release of MFs and additives is affected by the following factors summarized in Table 4: water volume, temperature, duration, washing program, use of detergent/softener/textile finishes, fabric types, numbers of washing, fabric weave construction, and chemical properties of additives (De Falco et al. 2018; Hernandez et al. 2017; Kelly et al. 2019; Napper and Thompson 2016; Saini et al. 2016b; Wang et al. 2019a) (Table 4). The factors affecting cotton fiber release were also included, since cotton fibers and plastic fibers may have the same release pattern (such as the use of textile finishes released more fibers, regardless of the fiber type). On the other hand, different fiber types may have different release patterns during washing.
The release of MFs to water depends on the washing conditions, while the release of additives is related to their chemical properties. Additives with higher polarity or hydrophilicity are more prone to be released to aquatic environment (Table 4). Besides, additives can be released to the surrounding environment since most of them are not chemically bound to the polymer matrix (exception: TBBPA is chemically bounded) (Hermabessiere et al. 2017).
In addition to the washing of synthetic fiber products, discarding cigarette butts or face masks can also cause MFs or chemicals released to aquatic environment (Fig. 3). Discarded cigarette butts result in about 300,000 tons of cellulose acetate MFs entering the aquatic environment annually. What accompanied is the release of toxic chemicals such as nicotine, carcinogenic tar, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals (cadmium, lead), which have been proven to pose toxic risk to marine organisms (Shen et al. 2021; Torkashvand et al. 2020; Wright et al. 2015). Micro and nano scale polymeric fibers and heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, and antimony have also been detected in face mask leachate. The presence of heavy metals may be attributed to the dyes used in production of colored masks (Sullivan et al. 2021; Sungur and Gulmez 2015). MFs released from face masks can also become carriers of additives and contaminants. It is estimated that approximately 3.4 billion disposable face masks are discarded globally every day, which cause complex environmental problems (Aragaw 2020; Benson et al. 2021). Moreover, there is also growing interest in novel environmental friendly face masks, such as polylactic acid (PLA) biodegradable masks (Soo et al. 2022). With the advantage of faster degradation rate, biodegradable fibers are also more likely to release additives.
Once MFs enter the aquatic environment, ultraviolet irradiation will accelerate fiber degradation and additives release. Ultraviolet exposure of two months resulted in surface degradation (holes appearance) of polyamide fibers and fragmentation (length reduction) of polyester fibers. In seawater leachates, the concentration of additives (TPhP, TCEP, etc.) released by MFs increased with increasing time (Sorensen et al. 2021). The leaching of additives caused by fragmentation or degradation of plastic fibers deserves further attention.
Release to Air
The release of MFs and additives to the air is also an important pathway. Via daily wear of polyester clothes and human activity, one person can release about 1.03 × 109 MFs to the air per year (De Falco et al. 2020). The drying process is another important source of MFs release (Kapp and Miller 2020). A household tumble dryer could release 433,128 (cotton) and 561,810 (polyester) microfibers in 15 min; the annual release of microfibers by a dryer may be even greater than the number of microfibers released through washing (Tao et al. 2022). Although many literatures reported the release of MFs to the air, little attention has been paid to the additives on MFs. Future study should focus more on additives release to the air together with MFs.
There are two main pathways for additives to be released to the air from MFs: (1) direct release by evaporation effect; (2) indirect release by the MFs generated by abrasion. The latter pathway is less studied. Schellenberger et al. (2022) explored the emission mechanism of PFAS from functional textiles (polyamide) under outdoor weathering conditions, revealing that in addition to the direct evaporation release, PFAS could also be released from abrasion and degradation of fibers. Moreover, some flame retardants (e.g., decabromodiphenylethane (DBDPE), PBDEs) released from electronic dryer may become indirect source of additives released to the air together with MFs (Saini et al. 2016b; Schecter et al. 2009).
MFs can account for up to 33% of the total microplastics in urban dust (Dehghani et al. 2017). These MFs can become carriers of additives during suspension, deposition, and migration in the air. PAEs, bisphenols, and flame retardants have widely been detected in airborne dust (Mitro et al. 2016). Zhang et al. (2020a) reported that the concentration of BPA in indoor dust samples was proportional to the concentration of polycarbonate (PC)-based microplastics, which also further confirmed that microplastic (fibers) is an important source of contaminants in dust.
After the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, face masks have become a contributor of polypropylene MFs. Additives like PAEs, OPEs, or synthetic antioxidants in them may be released to the air together with the use and abrasion of face masks. The exposure to MFs or additives through inhalation deserves attention. In regard to the humidity during breathing and higher temperature in summer, the release of some additives (e.g., OPEs) from face masks may increase (Fernandez–Arribas et al. 2021).
Release in Organisms
Plastics can act as a carrier of additives and transport over long distances. The disposal of face masks has become an emerging environmental problem in the last two years. For the first time, a PP face mask has even been found in the feces of a green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) near the coast of Japan; the risk of exposure to additives through plastics ingestion is of concern (Chowdhury et al. 2021; Fukuoka et al. 2022). MFs are ubiquitous in the marine environment, which are easily ingested by organisms of all trophic levels due to their small sizes. Ingestion of MFs by aquatic organisms can lead to growth inhibition, impairment of the immune system, and disruption of the gut microbiota; MFs have higher acute toxicity for lower taxa aquatic organisms (Rebelein et al. 2021). However, many exposure studies of MFs fail to distinguish between the toxicity effects of MFs and their additives (Alnajar et al. 2021). Although some indoor exposure experiments point out that MFs can be excreted gradually by organisms from their bodies through digestion (Grigorakis et al. 2017; Song et al. 2019), the additives loaded on MFs may be desorbed under intestinal conditions.
Most current experiments only focus on the biological effects of MFs, ignoring the exposure risks caused by additives in MFs. Additives have been proven to be released in organism from plastics or microplastics. In addition to chemical property of additives (log KOW), unique gastric environment of certain organisms such as higher temperature (body temperature of seabirds ≈ 40℃), low pH value, and the occurrence of stomach oil may accelerate the leaching of additives (Andrade et al. 2021; Kühn et al. 2020; Sun et al. 2021; Tanaka et al. 2013). At present, indoor exposure experiments on biological effects of microplastics and chemicals mostly focus on granular microplastics, due to the ease of purchase or preparation of granular microplastics. However, fibrous microplastics rather than granular ones are the most common type of microplastics in actual aquatic environment. In view of this, there exists a vacancy in research on the release of additives to organisms from fibers or MFs.
Estimation of Additive Amounts Released by Microplastic Fibers
As estimated by De Falco et al. (2020), one person could release about 2.98 × 108 polyester MFs to water via laundry and 1.03 × 109 to air via wearing polyester clothes per year. We converted the MF number concentration to mass concentration referring to the formula of Leusch and Ziajahromi (2021), i.e., 129.2 g to water and 446.5 g to air.
Here, we took the most common plastic additives PAEs as an example. According to the collected data, the concentration of PAEs in clothes ranges about 3.35–33.42 μg/g (Chai et al. 2017; Li et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2020; Tang et al. 2020). Assuming that the concentration of PAEs on the MFs is the same as clothes, i.e., the additives in clothes can all be released with the fiber without loss. The mass of PAEs released per person per year:
Based on a global population of 8 billion, the global mass of PAEs released to water is 3.46–34.55 t per year via washing, and to air is 11.97–119.39 t per year via wearing polyester clothes. Similarly, the global mass of OPEs, bisphenols, PFAS, and NPE released from MFs per year is 0.0050–10.09 t, 0.0060–552.98 t, 0.0046–0.39 t, and 1.24–568.48 t to water, respectively; and 0.017–34.88 t, 0.021–1911.02 t, 0.016–1.36 t, and 4.29–1964.6 t to air, respectively (Table 5).
Exposure and Health Risks
Dermal Exposure
Clothes cover approximately 85% of human skin and act as a barrier to block environmental pollutants. However, clothes can also be a potential exposure source of certain chemicals (Fig. 4). For textiles (especially clothes), dermal exposure is an important exposure pathway. Dermal exposure doses of PAEs and bisphenols were 11.83–950 ng/kg BW/d (302.3–24,272.5 μg /year) and 0.21–0.26 ng/kg BW/d (5.4–6.6 μg/year), respectively (Liu et al. 2020; Tang et al. 2020; Xue et al. 2017). Socks containing BPA had great effect on infant, with a maximum BPA exposure dose of 7.28 ng/kg BW/d (Xue et al. 2017). As mentioned above, PVC prints are mostly found in children’s clothing, which contain high levels of PAEs. Children and infants are the most vulnerable groups to endocrine disruptors. Sweating can increase the risk of dermal exposure to additives such as PAEs or BPA (Liu et al. 2020; Xue et al. 2017). Bad habits such as biting and sucking fingers of infants and children may also pose exposure risk of oral ingestion. According to a survey, the mean levels of PAEs (DEHP 6.74%, DINP 1.32%) in childcare products (toys, baby mattresses and textiles, baby diaper pads) exceed the 0.1% standard of the European Union, which are likely to pose high oral or dermal exposure risks (Negev et al. 2018).
Inhalation and Ingestion (of Microplastic Fibers)
Human beings and other organisms are exposed to MFs mainly via three routes, including inhalation, ingestion, and dermal exposure. Only the former two exposure routes can cause actual MF intake. Inhalation of MFs can adversely affect the respiratory tracts (Lim et al. 2021; Moolgavkar et al. 2001), which has also been suggested to be associated with the formation of ground glass nodules in human lungs (Chen et al. 2022). Ingestion of MFs has been confirmed in various organisms, including aquatic organisms (fish, decapods, bivalves, zooplankton, etc.), terrestrial organisms (earthworm, snails), and even human beings (Lahive et al. 2022; Rebelein et al. 2021; Song et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2022). MFs ingestion can cause oxidative stress and inflammation in fish (Zhao et al. 2021), MFs ingestion may be associated with inflammatory bowel disease in human beings (Yan et al. 2022), and even immune disorders and increased risk of neoplasia in the long run (Prata et al. 2020).
As a necessity under the Covid-19 pandemic, the additive inhalation risks caused by wearing face masks deserve attention. N95 masks may cause higher inhalation risk than general surgical masks (Table 5). According to the collected estimated daily intake (EDI) values, the exposure amounts of additives from face masks are 0.7–1820 μg/person/year through inhalation and 546–2912 μg/person/year through ingestion (Fig. 4, Table 5). Attentionally, although the EDI value of DEHP is at a safe level (not exceed the TDI value of 50,000 ng/kg BW/d, Table 5), wearing N95 masks for long time (occupational groups, such as doctors), taking high physical activity, and under higher temperature or humidity in summer may pose higher inhalation risk (Fernandez-Arribas et al., 2021; Muensterman et al. 2022). The chemicals in face masks may be inhaled or ingested orally under long time of wearing; thus, it is necessary to regulate the type and content of additives in face masks in the context that Covid-19 will possibly coexist with humans for a long time.
In addition to the risk caused by direct release of additives on fiber products, there are also effects posed by additive release from MFs, posing higher risks than plastic monomers (Rodrigues et al. 2019). MFs can enter organisms directly via inhalation through the respiratory tract or ingestion through the digestive tract. We calculated the exposure amounts of additives through microplastic fibers inhalation and ingestion and are listed in Table 5. Based on the data provided by Zhang et al. (Zhang et al. 2022, 2020c), i.e., one person could ingest approximately (2.3–8.5) × 104 microfibers via dining and inhale (0–3.0) × 107 microplastics per year. Since airborne microplastics are mainly fibrous, we assumed that 90% of the inhaled MPs are fibers. After conversion, the mass of microfibers inhaled and ingested per person per year is 0–11.71 g and 0.10–0.37 g, respectively (the conversion of MF mass and quantity refer to the formula of Leusch and Ziajahromi (2021)). We selected the three most common chemicals (DEHP, BPA, TCIPP) as an example. For instance, one person may inhale about 0–37.71 μg DEHP (the most typical PAE with high detection frequency and concentration) and ingest about 0.27–1.19 μg DEHP with MFs per year (Table 5). The tolerable daily intake (TDI) value of DEHP is 50 μg/kg BW/d. Assuming that average body weight to be 70 kg for adult, the TDI value for DEHP is 1.28 g/person per year (50 μg/kg BW/d *70 kg*365 d = 1.28 g), the mass of DEHP that one person may inhale or ingest per year does not exceed the TDI value. Similarly, the mass of BPA or TCIPP that one person may inhale or ingest per year does not exceed the TDI value. According to our estimation (Table 5), the maximum exposure amounts of additives through inhalation and ingestion of MFs released from clothing are 4.48–6440.5 µg/person/year and 0.14–203.5 µg/person/year, respectively. Such situation still cannot be ignored and deserves further attention.
Conclusions and Outlook
MFs are ubiquitous in our daily lives, since actions such as the washing, drying, and abrasion of clothes, human contact friction, and the use and discard of face masks all cause MFs release into the environment. However, there is insufficient understanding about additives on MFs. When MFs are abrased and released, the additives can also be released into the environment accordingly, posing potential ecological and health risks to organisms.
In this review, we first summarized analytical methods of additives in synthetic textiles, and recommended sample extraction and compounds quantification methods for typical additives. Second, we comprehensively analyzed the types and concentrations of additives in textile fibers and MFs. Typical additives in traditional fiber products (clothes) and emerging fiber product (face masks) include plasticizers (DEHP, DBP), flame retardants (TCEP, TPhP, TEHP), antioxidants (bisphenols, AO168, AO1010, DBP), and surfactants (PFAS, NPEs), at concentrations of 100–106 ng/g. Finally, we discussed the main release pathways of additives in MFs to the environment, i.e., release to water through washing and release to the air through abrasion or drying. Additives in fiber products pose health risks through inhalation (0.7–1820 μg/person/year), ingestion (546–2912 μg/person/year), and dermal exposure to MFs (4.4–24,272.5 μg/person/year).
Collectively, we reviewed the occurrence and abundance of additives in synthetic textiles, which can release MFs via various daily life processes, including laundry, drying, abrasion, etc. The wide occurrence and exposure amounts of additives from MFs/fibers were confirmed, indicating that MFs pollution in daily life and the potential health risks should not be underestimated.
Finally, several perspectives on the research of chemical additives in MFs were proposed: (1) There exists a vacancy in extraction or analysis methods targeting additives on MFs. Since the mass of environmental MFs collected is too low to meet the detection limits of instruments, future research could focus more on the development of equipment with high sensitivity, automation, and approaches without extraction pretreatment. (2) Current studies mainly focus on the release of additives from large plastic fibers, whereas little attention has been paid to the carrier role of MFs. Much more future work needs to be performed to understand the potential leaching of additives from MFs. (3) The chemical additives exposure risk is mainly obtained by estimating EDI values from large plastic fibers. However, humans are more easily to be exposed to additives released from MFs, which only received little attention yet and warrant further in-depth research.
Abbreviations
- 2,4-DTBP:
-
2,4-Di-tert-butyl-phenol
- A01010, Irganox 1010:
-
Pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate
- AO168:
-
Tris(2,4-di-tertbutylphenyl) phosphite
- APEO:
-
Alkylphenol polyethoxylates
- ASE:
-
Accelerated solvent extraction
- BBP:
-
Benzyl butyl phthalate
- BFR:
-
Brominated flame retardants
- BHA:
-
Butyl hydroxyanisole
- BHT:
-
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-4-methyl phenol
- BPA:
-
Bisphenol A
- BPF:
-
Bisphenol F
- BPS:
-
Bisphenol S
- DCM:
-
Dichloromethane
- DEHP:
-
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
- DIBP:
-
Di-iso-butyl phthalate
- DnBP:
-
Dibutyl phthalate
- FTOHs:
-
Fluorotelomer alcohols
- HFIP:
-
1,1,1,3,3,3-Hexafluoro-2-propanol
- Irganox 1076:
-
Octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-buty-4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate
- MAE:
-
Microwave-assisted extraction
- MF:
-
Microplastic fiber
- NP:
-
Nonylphenol
- NPE:
-
Nonylphenol ethoxylates
- OPE:
-
Organophosphorus esters
- OPFR:
-
Organophosphorus flame retardants
- PAE:
-
Phthalate
- PBB:
-
Polybromobiphenyls
- PBDE:
-
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
- PFAS:
-
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
- PFCA:
-
Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids
- PFOS:
-
Perfluorooctanesulphonate
- PFSA:
-
Perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids
- PP:
-
Polypropylene
- TCEP:
-
Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate
- TCIPP:
-
Tris(2-chloropropyl) phosphate
- TCPP:
-
Tris(2-chloroisopropyl) phosphate
- TEHP:
-
Tri(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate
- TEP:
-
Triethyl phosphate
- THF:
-
Tetrahydrofuran
- TMPP:
-
Trimethylphenyl phosphate
- TnBP:
-
Tributyl phosphate
- TNPP:
-
Tris(4-nonyl-phenyl) phosphate
- TPhP:
-
Triphenyl phosphate
- TRIS:
-
Tris (2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate
- USE:
-
Ultrasonic extraction
- XRF:
-
X-ray fluorescence
References
Abdallah MA-E (2016) Environmental occurrence, analysis and human exposure to the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBP-A)-a review. Environ Int 94:235–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.05.026
Abdallah MA-E, Drage DS, Sharkey M, Berresheim H, Harrad S (2017) A rapid method for the determination of brominated flame retardant concentrations in plastics and textiles entering the waste stream. J Sep Sci 40:3873–3881. https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.201700497
Akhbarizadeh R, Dobaradaran S, Torkmahalleh MA, Saeedi R, Aibaghi R, Ghasemi FF (2021) Suspended fine particulate matter (PM2.5), microplastics (MPs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in air: their possible relationships and health implications. Environ Res 192:110339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110339
Akoueson F, Chbib C, Brémard A, Monchy S, Paul-Pont I, Doyen P, Dehaut A, Duflos G (2022) Identification of plastic additives: Py/TD–GC–HRMS method development and application on food containers. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 168:105745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2022.105745
Alnajar N, Jha AN, Turner A (2021) Impacts of microplastic fibres on the marine mussel, Mytilus galloprovinciallis. Chemosphere 262:128290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128290
Al–Natsheh M, Alawi M, Fayyad M, Tarawneh I (2015) Simultaneous GC-MS determination of eight phthalates in total and migrated portions of plasticized polymeric toys and childcare articles. J Chromatogr B 985:103–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2015.01.010
Andrade H, Glüge J, Herzke D, Ashta NM, Nayagar SM, Scheringer M (2021) Oceanic long–range transport of organic additives present in plastic products: an overview. Environ Sci Eur 33:85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-021-00522-x
Anuar ST, Altarawnah RS, Mohd Ali AA, Lee BQ, Khalik WM, Yusof KM, Ibrahim YS (2022) Utilizing pyrolysis–gas chromatography/mass spectrometry for monitoring and analytical characterization of microplastics in polychaete worms. Polymers 14:3054
Aragaw TA (2020) Surgical face masks as a potential source for microplastic pollution in the COVID-19 scenario. Mar Pollut Bull 159:111517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111517
Athira N, Jaya DJNE, Technology P (2018) The use of fish biomarkers for assessing textile effluent contamination of aquatic ecosystems: a review. Nat Environ Pollut Technol 17:25–34
Bastiaensen M, Xu F, Been F, Van den Eede N, Covaci A (2018) Simultaneous determination of 14 urinary biomarkers of exposure to organophosphate flame retardants and plasticizers by LC-MS/MS. Anal Bioanal Chem 410:7871–7880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-018-1402-2
Benson NU, Bassey DE, Palanisami T (2021) COVID pollution: impact of COVID-19 pandemic on global plastic waste footprint. Heliyon 7:e06343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06343
Bernard L, Bourdeaux D, Pereira B, Azaroual N, Barthelemy C, Breysse C, Chennell P, Cueff R, Dine T, Eljezi T, Feutry F, Genay S, Kambia N, Lecoeur M, Masse M, Odou P, Radaniel T, Simon N, Vaccher C, Verlhac C, Yessad M, Decaudin B, Sautou V (2017) Analysis of plasticizers in PVC medical devices: Performance comparison of eight analytical methods. Talanta 162:604–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2016.10.033
Bodaghi A (2020) An overview on the recent developments in reactive plasticizers in polymers. Polym Adv Technol 31:355–367. https://doi.org/10.1002/pat.4790
Bourbigot S (2008) Flame retardancy of textiles: new approaches. In: Horrocks AR, Price D (eds) Advances in fire retardant materials. Woodhead Publishing, pp 9–40
Bourdeaux D, Yessaad M, Chennell P, Larbre V, Eljezi T, Bernard L, Sautou V, Grp AS (2016) Analysis of PVC plasticizers in medical devices and infused solutions by GC-MS. J Pharm Biomed Anal 118:206–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2015.10.034
Brigden K, Labunska I, House E, Santillo D, Johnston PJgo (2012) Hazardous chemicals in branded textile products on sale in 27 places during 2012. Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Report. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263621223
Brigden K, Hetherington S, Wang M, Santillo D, Johnston P (2013) Hazardous chemicals in branded luxury textile products on sale during 2013. Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Report. https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-thailand-stateless/2014/02/799fe2e2-technical-report.pdf
Chai M, Wang Y, Zhong F, Han X, Tang Z (2017) Distribution and human risks of phthalate esters in children’s clothing collected from China (in Chinese). Res Environ Sci 30:1425–1432
Chen Q, Gao J, Yu H, Su H, Yang Y, Cao Y, Zhang Q, Ren Y, Hollert H, Shi H, Chen C, Liu H (2022) An emerging role of microplastics in the etiology of lung ground glass nodules. Environ Sci Eur 34:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00605-3
Chowdhury H, Chowdhury T, Sait SM (2021) Estimating marine plastic pollution from COVID-19 face masks in coastal regions. Mar Pollut Bull 168:112419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112419
Cotton L, Hayward AS, Lant NJ, Blackburn RS (2020) Improved garment longevity and reduced microfibre release are important sustainability benefits of laundering in colder and quicker washing machine cycles. Dyes Pigm 177:108120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dyepig.2019.108120
Dalla Fontana G, Mossotti R, Montarsolo A (2020) Assessment of microplastics release from polyester fabrics: The impact of different washing conditions. Environ Pollut 264:113960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.113960
Dalla Fontana G, Mossotti R, Montarsolo A (2021) Influence of sewing on microplastic release from textiles during washing. Water Air Soil Pollut 232:50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-021-04995-7
De Falco F, Gullo MP, Gentile G, Di Pace E, Cocca M, Gelabert L, Brouta-Agnesa M, Rovira A, Escudero R, Villalba R, Mossotti R, Montarsolo A, Gavignano S, Tonin C, Avella M (2018) Evaluation of microplastic release caused by textile washing processes of synthetic fabrics. Environ Pollut 236:916–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.10.057
De Falco F, Cocca M, Avella M, Thompson RC (2020) Microfiber release to water, via laundering, and to air, via everyday use: a comparison between polyester clothing with differing textile parameters. Environ Sci Technol 54:3288–3296. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06892
De Felice B, Antenucci S, Ortenzi MA, Parolini M (2022) Laundering of face masks represents an additional source of synthetic and natural microfibers to aquatic ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 806:150495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150495
Dehghani S, Moore F, Akhbarizadeh R (2017) Microplastic pollution in deposited urban dust, Tehran metropolis, Iran. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:20360–20371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9674-1
Deng H, Su L, Zheng Y, Du F, Liu Q-X, Zheng J, Zhou Z, Shi H (2022) Crack patterns of environmental plastic fragments. Environ Sci Technol 56:6399–6414. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c08100
Dris R, Gasperi J, Saad M, Mirande C, Tassin B (2016) Synthetic fibers in atmospheric fallout: a source of microplastics in the environment? Mar Pollut Bull 104:290–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.006
Fadare OO, Okoffo ED (2020) Covid-19 face masks: a potential source of microplastic fibers in the environment. Sci Total Environ 737:140279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140279
Fernandez-Arribas J, Moreno T, Bartroli R, Eljarrat E (2021) COVID-19 face masks: a new source of human and environmental exposure to organophosphate esters. Environ Int 154:106654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106654
Freire C, Molina-Molina J-M, Iribarne-Duran LM, Jimenez-Diaz I, Vela-Soria F, Mustieles V, Pedro Arrebola J, Fernandez MF, Artacho-Cordon F, Olea N (2019) Concentrations of bisphenol A and parabens in socks for infants and young children in Spain and their hormone–like activities. Environ Int 127:592–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.013
Fu KJ, Yang LS, Feng CS, Chen L (2012) Research on detecting tris-(2, 3-dibromopropyl)-phosphate in textiles with the HPLC/DAD method. Adv Mater Res 441:640–644. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.441.640
Fukuoka T, Sakane F, Kinoshita C, Sato K, Mizukawa K, Takada H (2022) Covid-19-derived plastic debris contaminating marine ecosystem: alert from a sea turtle. Mar Pollut Bull 175:113389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113389
Giergielewicz-Możajska H, Dąbrowski Ł, Namieśnik J (2001) Accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) in the analysis of environmental solid samples—some aspects of theory and practice. Crit Rev Anal Chem 31:149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/20014091076712
Gremmel C, Froemel T, Knepper TP (2016) Systematic determination of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in outdoor jackets. Chemosphere 160:173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.06.043
Grigorakis S, Mason SA, Drouillard KG (2017) Determination of the gut retention of plastic microbeads and microfibers in goldfish (Carassius auratus). Chemosphere 169:233–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.11.055
Groffen T, Bervoets L, Jeong Y, Willems T, Eens M, Prinsen E (2021) A rapid method for the detection and quantification of legacy and emerging per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in bird feathers using UPLC-MS/MS. J Chromatogr B 1172:122653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2021.122653
Guo X, Mu T, Xian Y, Luo D, Wang C (2016) Ultra–performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spec trometry for the rapid simultaneous analysis of nine organophosphate esters in milk powder. Food Chem 196:673–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.09.100
Hahladakis JN, Velis CA, Weber R, Iacovidou E, Purnell P (2018) An overview of chemical additives present in plastics: migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. J Hazard Mater 344:179–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.10.014
Hajiouni S, Mohammadi A, Ramavandi B, Arfaeinia H, De-la-Torre GE, Tekle-Roettering A, Dobaradaran S (2022) Occurrence of microplastics and phthalate esters in urban runoff: a focus on the Persian Gulf coastline. Sci Total Environ 806:150559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150559
Halloum W, Cariou R, Dervilly-Pinel G, Jaber F, Le Bizec B (2017) APCI as an innovative ionization mode compared with EI and CI for the analysis of a large range of organophosphate esters using GC-MS/MS. J Mass Spectrom 52:54–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/jms.3899
Han Y, Cheng J, Tang Z, He Y, Lyu Y (2021) Widespread occurrence of phthalates in popular take–out food containers from China and the implications for human exposure. J Clean Prod 290:125851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125851
Hermabessiere L, Dehaut A, Paul-Pont I, Lacroix C, Jezequel R, Soudant P, Duflos G (2017) Occurrence and effects of plastic additives on marine environments and organisms: a review. Chemosphere 182:781–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.096
Hernandez E, Nowack B, Mitrano DM (2017) Polyester textiles as a source of microplastics from households: a mechanistic study to understand microfiber release during washing. Environ Sci Technol 51:7036–7046. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b01750
Herzke D, Olsson E, Posner S (2012) Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in consumer products in Norway—a pilot study. Chemosphere 88:980–987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.03.035
Heydebreck F, Tang J, Xie Z, Ebinghaus R (2016) Emissions of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in a textile manufacturing plant in China and their relevance for workers’ exposure. Environ Sci Technol 50:10386–10396. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03213
Holmquist H, Schellenberger S, van der Veen I, Peters GM, Leonards PEG, Cousins IT (2016) Properties, performance and associated hazards of state-of-the-art durable water repellent (DWR) chemistry for textile finishing. Environ Int 91:251–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.02.035
Hu A, Qiu M, Liu H, Xu Y, Tao Y, Yang G, He Y, Xu J, Lu Z (2020) Simultaneous determination of phthalate diesters and monoesters in soil using accelerated solvent extraction and ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1626:461347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2020.461347
Humbert K, Debret M, Morin C, Cosme J, Portet-Koltalo F (2022) Direct thermal desorption-gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry versus microwave assisted extraction and GC-MS for the simultaneous analysis of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs, PCBs) from sediments. Talanta 250:123735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2022.123735
Ionas AC, Gomez AB, Uchida N, Suzuki G, Kajiwara N, Takata K, Takigami H, Leonards PEG, Covaci A (2015) Comprehensive characterisation of flame retardants in textile furnishings by ambient high resolution mass spectrometry, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and environmental forensic microscopy. Environ Res 142:712–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2015.09.012
Jane L, Espartero L, Yamada M, Ford J, Owens G, Prow T, Juhasz A (2022) Health–related toxicity of emerging per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: comparison to legacy PFOS and PFOA. Environ Res 212:113431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113431
Jin M, Liu J, Yu J, Zhou Q, Wu W, Fu L, Yin C, Fernandez C, Karimi-Maleh H (2022) Current development and future challenges in microplastic detection techniques: a bibliometrics-based analysis and review. Sci Prog 105:00368504221132151. https://doi.org/10.1177/00368504221132151
Kapp KJ, Miller RZ (2020) Electric clothes dryers: an underestimated source of microfiber pollution. PLoS ONE 15:e0239165. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239165
Kelly MR, Lant NJ, Kurr M, Burgess JG (2019) Importance of water–volume on the release of microplastic fibers from laundry. Environ Sci Technol 53:11735–11744. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03022
Khan U, Jahangir M (2020) Development of a new gas chromatographic–mass spectrometry method for the simultaneous analysis of all regulated phthalates in consumer goods. Int J Environ Anal Chem 100:1299–1308. https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2019.1651850
Kim JW, Kim Y-M, Moon HM, Hosaka A, Watanabe C, Teramae N, Choe EK, Myung S-W (2016) Comparative study of thermal desorption and solvent extraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometric analysis for the quantification of phthalates in polymers. J Chromatogr A 1451:33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2016.05.014
Kühn S, Booth AM, Sørensen L, van Oyen A, van Franeker JA (2020) Transfer of additive chemicals from marine plastic debris to the stomach oil of northern fulmars. Front Environ Sci 8:138. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.00138
La Nasa J, Biale G, Mattonai M, Modugno F (2021) Microwave–assisted solvent extraction and double–shot analytical pyrolysis for the quali–quantitation of plasticizers and microplastics in beach sand samples. J Hazard Mater 401:123287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123287
Lahive E, Cross R, Saarloos AI, Horton AA, Svendsen C, Hufenus R, Mitrano DM (2022) Earthworms ingest microplastic fibres and nanoplastics with effects on egestion rate and long–term retention. Sci Total Environ 807:151022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151022
Leusch FDL, Ziajahromi S (2021) Converting mg/L to particles/L: reconciling the occurrence and toxicity literature on microplastics. Environ Sci Technol 55:11470–11472. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04093
Li AJ, Kannan K (2018) Elevated concentrations of bisphenols, benzophenones, and antimicrobials in pantyhose collected from six countries. Environ Sci Technol 52:10812–10819. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03129
Li J, Wang G (2015) Airborne particulate endocrine disrupting compounds in China: compositions, size distributions and seasonal variations of phthalate esters and bisphenol A. Atmos Res 154:138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2014.11.013
Li X, Yang Y, Cui X, Li S, Zhu X, Tang S (2015) Determination of phthalate esters in textiles by solid phase extraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Anal Lett 48:2544–2552. https://doi.org/10.1080/00032719.2015.1043665
Li H-L, Ma W-L, Liu L-Y, Zhang Z, Sverko E, Zhang Z-F, Song W-W, Sun Y, Li Y-F (2019) Phthalates in infant cotton clothing: occurrence and implications for human exposure. Sci Total Environ 683:109–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.132
Li M, Chen Q, Ma C, Gao Z, Yu H, Xu L, Shi H (2022) Effects of microplastics and food particles on organic pollutants bioaccumulation in equi-fugacity and above-fugacity scenarios. Sci Total Environ 812:152548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152548
Licina D, Morrison GC, Beko G, Weschler CJ, Nazaroff WW (2019) Clothing-mediated exposures to chemicals and particles. Environ Sci Technol 53:5559–5575. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b00272
Lim D, Jeong J, Song KS, Sung JH, Oh SM, Choi J (2021) Inhalation toxicity of polystyrene micro(nano)plastics using modified OECD TG 412. Chemosphere 262:128330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128330
Lin L, Zuo L-Z, Peng J-P, Cai L-Q, Fok L, Yan Y, Li H-X, Xu X-R (2018) Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in an urban river: a case study in the Pearl River along Guangzhou City, China. Sci Total Environ 644:375–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.327
Liu R, Mabury SA (2020) Synthetic phenolic antioxidants: a review of environmental occurrence, fate, human exposure, and toxicity. Environ Sci Technol 54:11706–11719. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05077
Liu R, Mabury SA (2021) Single-use face masks as a potential source of synthetic antioxidants to the environment. Environ Sci Technol Lett 8:651–655. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00422
Liu K, Wang X, Fang T, Xu P, Zhu L, Li D (2019a) Source and potential risk assessment of suspended atmospheric microplastics in Shanghai. Sci Total Environ 675:462–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.110
Liu K, Wu T, Wang X, Song Z, Zong C, Wei N, Li D (2019b) Consistent transport of terrestrial microplastics to the ocean through atmosphere. Environ Sci Technol 53:10612–10619. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03427
Liu Y, Zhang Y, Li K, Wu Y, Wang L (2020) Phthalates in daily clothes: occurrence and human exposure. Asian J Ecotoxicol 15:186–192. https://doi.org/10.7524/aje.1673-5897.20190303001
Liu Z, Wang J, Yang X, Qe H, Zhu K, Sun Y, Van Hulle S, Jia H (2022) Generation of environmental persistent free radicals (EPFRs) enhances ecotoxicological effects of the disposable face mask waste with the COVID-19 pandemic. Environ Pollut 301:119019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119019
Llompart M, Celeiro M, Dagnac T (2019) Microwave-assisted extraction of pharmaceuticals, personal care products and industrial contaminants in the environment. TrAC-Trends Anal Chem 116:136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2019.04.029
Lorenzo M, Campo J, Pico Y (2016) Ultra-high-pressure liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method for the determination of 9 organophosphate flame retardants in water samples. MethodsX 3:343–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2016.04.006
Lucattini L, Poma G, Covaci A, de Boer J, Lamoree MH, Leonards PEG (2018) A review of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) in the indoor environment: occurrence in consumer products, indoor air and dust. Chemosphere 201:466–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.02.161
Luongo G, Avagyan R, Hongyu R, Östman C (2016) The washout effect during laundry on benzothiazole, benzotriazole, quinoline, and their derivatives in clothing textiles. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:2537–2548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5405-7
Mitro SD, Dodson RE, Singla V, Adarnkiewicz G, Elmi AF, Tilly MK, Zota AR (2016) Consumer product chemicals in indoor dust: a quantitative meta–analysis of US studies. Environ Sci Technol 50:10661–10672. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02023
Miyake Y, Tokumura M, Nakayama H, Wang Q, Amagai T, Ogo S, Kume K, Kobayashi T, Takasu S, Ogawa K, Kannan K (2017) Simultaneous determination of brominated and phosphate flame retardants in flame-retarded polyester curtains by a novel extraction method. Sci Total Environ 601:1333–1339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.249
Moolgavkar SH, Brown RC, Turim J (2001) Biopersistence, fiber length, and cancer risk assessment for inhaled fibers. Inhalation Toxicol 13:755–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/089583701316941294
Muensterman DJ, Cahuas L, Titaley IA, Schmokel C, De la Cruz FB, Barlaz MA, Carignan CC, Peaslee GF, Field JA (2022) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in facemasks: potential source of human exposure to PFAS with implications for disposal to landfills. Environ Sci Technol Lett 9:320–326. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00019
Napper IE, Thompson RC (2016) Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines: effects of fabric type and washing conditions. Mar Pollut Bull 112:39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.025
Negev M, Berman T, Reicher S, Sadeh M, Ardi R, Shammai Y (2018) Concentrations of trace metals, phthalates, bisphenol A and flame-retardants in toys and other children’s products in Israel. Chemosphere 192:217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.10.132
Noorimotlagh Z, Haghighi NJ, Ahmadimoghadam M, Rahim F (2017) An updated systematic review on the possible effect of nonylphenol on male fertility. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:3298–3314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7960-y
Noorimotlagh Z, Mirzaee SA, Martinez SS, Rachoń D, Hoseinzadeh M, Jaafarzadeh N (2020) Environmental exposure to nonylphenol and cancer progression risk–a systematic review. Environ Res 184:109263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109263
Pandit P, Singha K, Kumar V, Maity S (2020) Advanced flame–retardant agents for protective textiles and clothing. Adv Funct Protect Text. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820257-9.00016-3
Pantelaki I, Voutsa D (2019) Organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs): a review on analytical methods and occurrence in wastewater and aquatic environment. Sci Total Environ 649:247–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.286
Pepper LR (2021) Preferred fiber & materials market report 2021. https://textileexchange.org/preferred-fiber-and-materials-market-report/
Petreas M, Gill R, Takaku-Pugh S, Lytle E, Parry E, Wang M, Quinn J, Park J-S (2016) Rapid methodology to screen flame retardants in upholstered furniture for compliance with new California labeling law (SB 1019). Chemosphere 152:353–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.02.102
Portet-Koltalo F, Guibert N, Morin C, De Mengin-Fondragon F, Frouard A (2021) Evaluation of polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants from various materials in professional seating furnishing wastes from French flows. Waste Manage (Oxford) 131:108–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.05.038
Prata JC, da Costa JP, Lopes I, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T (2020) Environmental exposure to microplastics: an overview on possible human health effects. Sci Total Environ 702:134455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134455
Rani M, Shim WJ, Han GM, Jang M, Song YK, Hong SH (2017) Benzotriazole–type ultraviolet stabilizers and antioxidants in plastic marine debris and their new products. Sci Total Environ 579:745–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.033
Rebelein A, Int-Veen I, Kammann U, Scharsack JP (2021) Microplastic fibers—underestimated threat to aquatic organisms. Sci Total Environ 777:146045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146045
Reemtsma T, Benito Quintana J, Rodil R, Garcia-Lopez M, Rodriguez I (2008) Organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in water and air I: occurrence and fate. TrAC–Trends Analy Chem 27:727–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2008.07.002
Rodgers KM, Swartz CH, Occhialini J, Bassignani P, McCurdy M, Schaider LA (2022) How well do product labels indicate the presence of PFAS in consumer items used by children and adolescents? Environ Sci Technol 56:6294–6304. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c05175
Rodrigues MO, Abrantes N, Goncalves FJM, Nogueira H, Marques JC, Goncalves AMM (2019) Impacts of plastic products used in daily life on the environment and human health: what is known? Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 72:103239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2019.103239
Rovira J, Domingo JL (2019) Human health risks due to exposure to inorganic and organic chemicals from textiles: a review. Environ Res 168:62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.09.027
Saini A, Rauert C, Simpson MJ, Harrad S, Diamond ML (2016a) Characterizing the sorption of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) to cotton and polyester fabrics under controlled conditions. Sci Total Environ 563:99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.099
Saini A, Thaysen C, Jantunen L, McQueen RH, Diamond ML (2016b) From clothing to laundry water: investigating the fate of phthalates, brominated flame retardants, and organophosphate esters. Environ Sci Technol 50:9289–9297. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02038
Sait STL, Sørensen L, Kubowicz S, Vike-Jonas K, Gonzalez SV, Asimakopoulos AG, Booth AM (2021) Microplastic fibres from synthetic textiles: environmental degradation and additive chemical content. Environ Pollut 268:115745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115745
Saito I, Onuki A, Seto H (2007) Indoor organophosphate and polybrominated flame retardants in Tokyo. Indoor Air 17:28–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2006.00442.x
Sanchez-Prado L, Garcia-Jares C, Llompart M (2010) Microwave-assisted extraction: application to the determination of emerging pollutants in solid samples. J Chromatogr A 1217:2390–2414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2009.11.080
Schäfer T, Herter M (2021) Input-oriented chemicals management along the textile supply chain. Springer International Publishing, Cham
Schecter A, Shah N, Colacino JA, Brummitt SI, Ramakrishnan V, Harris TR, Paepke O (2009) PBDEs in US and German clothes dryer lint: a potential source of indoor contamination and exposure. Chemosphere 75:623–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.01.017
Schellenberger S, Jonsson C, Mellin P, Levenstam OA, Liagkouridis I, Ribbenstedt A, Hanning A-C, Schultes L, Plassmann MM, Persson C, Cousins IT, Benskin JP (2019) Release of side-chain fluorinated polymer-containing microplastic fibers from functional textiles during washing and first estimates of perfluoroalkyl acid emissions. Environ Sci Technol 53:14329–14338. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04165
Schellenberger S, Liagkouridis I, Awad R, Khan S, Plassmann M, Peters G, Benskin JP, Cousins IT (2022) An outdoor aging study to unvestigate the release of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from functional textiles. Environ Sci Technol 56:3471–3479. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c06812
Shen M, Li Y, Song B, Zhou C, Gong J, Zeng G (2021) Smoked cigarette butts: Unignorable source for environmental microplastic fibers. Sci Total Environ 791:148384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148384
Shi S, Cao J, Zhang Y, Zhao B (2018) Emissions of phthalates from indoor flat materials in Chinese residences. Environ Sci Technol 52:13166–13173. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03580
Shin JH, Baek YJ (2012) Analysis of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in textiles treated by brominated flame retardants. Text Res J 82:1307–1316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040517512439943
Siegfried M, Koelmans AA, Besseling E, Kroeze C (2017) Export of microplastics from land to sea: a modelling approach. Water Res 127:249–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.10.011
Sillanpaa M, Sainio P (2017) Release of polyester and cotton fibers from textiles in machine washings. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:19313–19321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9621-1
Song Y, Cao C, Qiu R, Hu J, Liu M, Lu S, Shi H, Raley-Susman KM, He D (2019) Uptake and adverse effects of polyethylene terephthalate microplastics fibers on terrestrial snails (Achatina fulica) after soil exposure. Environ Pollut 250:447–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.04.066
Soo XYD, Wang S, Yeo CCJ, Li J, Ni XP, Jiang L, Xue K, Li Z, Fei X, Zhu Q, Loh XJ (2022) Polylactic acid face masks: are these the sustainable solutions in times of COVID-19 pandemic? Sci Total Environ 807:151084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151084
Sorensen L, Groven AS, Hovsbakken IA, Del Puerto O, Krause DF, Sarno A, Booth AM (2021) UV degradation of natural and synthetic microfibers causes fragmentation and release of polymer degradation products and chemical additives. Sci Total Environ 755:143170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143170
Stubbings WA, Schreder ED, Thomas MB, Romanak K, Venier M, Salamova A (2018) Exposure to brominated and organophosphate ester flame retardants in US childcare environments: effect of removal of flame-retarded nap mats on indoor levels. Environ Pollut 238:1056–1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.03.083
Stubbings WA, Nguyen LV, Romanak K, Jantunen L, Melymuk L, Arrandale V, Diamond ML, Venier M (2019) Flame retardants and plasticizers in a Canadian waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) dismantling facility. Sci Total Environ 675:594–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.265
Su L, Cai H, Kolandhasamy P, Wu C, Rochman CM, Shi H (2018) Using the Asian clam as an indicator of microplastic pollution in freshwater ecosystems. Environ Pollut 234:347–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.075
Sullivan GL, Delgado-Gallardo J, Watson TM, Sarp S (2021) An investigation into the leaching of micro and nano particles and chemical pollutants from disposable face masks-linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. Water Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117033
Sun B, Liu J, Zhang Y-Q, Leungb KMY, Zeng EY (2021) Leaching of polybrominated diphenyl ethers from microplastics in fish oil: Kinetics and bioaccumulation. J Hazard Mater 406:124726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124726
Sungur S, Gulmez F (2015) Determination of metal contents of various fibers used in textile industry by MP-AES. J Spectrosc 2015:640271. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/640271
Tan H, Chen D, Peng C, Liu X, Wu Y, Li X, Du R, Wang B, Guo Y, Zeng EY (2018) Novel and traditional organophosphate esters in house dust from South China: Association with hand wipes and exposure estimation. Environ Sci Technol 52:11017–11026. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02933
Tan H, Yang L, Huang Y, Tao L, Chen D (2021) “Novel” synthetic antioxidants in house dust from multiple locations in the Asia-Pacific region and the United States. Environ Sci Technol 55:8675–8682. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00195
Tanaka K, Takada H, Yamashita R, Mizukawa K, Fukuwaka M-A, Watanuki Y (2013) Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds ingesting marine plastics. Mar Pollut Bull 69:219–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.12.010
Tang Z, Chai M, Wang Y, Cheng J (2020) Phthalates in preschool children’s clothing manufactured in seven Asian countries: occurrence, profiles and potential health risks. J Hazard Mater 387:121681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121681
Tao D, Zhang K, Xu S, Lin H, Liu Y, Kang J, Yim T, Giesy JP, Leung KMY (2022) Microfibers released into the air from a household tumble dryer. Environ Sci Technol Lett 9:120–126. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00911
Torkashvand J, Farzadkia M, Sobhi HR, Esrafili A (2020) Littered cigarette butt as a well-known hazardous waste: a comprehensive systematic review. J Hazard Mater 383:121242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121242
Vassilenko E, Watkins M, Chastain S, Mertens J, Posacka AM, Patankar S, Ross PS (2021) Domestic laundry and microfiber pollution: exploring fiber shedding from consumer apparel textiles. PLoS ONE 16:e0250346. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250346
Vestergren R, Herzke D, Wang T, Cousins IT (2015) Are imported consumer products an important diffuse source of PFASs to the Norwegian environment? Environ Pollut 198:223–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.12.034
Wang C, Li L, Xie T, Zhang E, Shen Y, Chen H, Liu C (2011) Simultaneous determination of six kinds of banned organophosphorous flame retardants in textiles by gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometry combined with ultrasonic extraction (in Chinese). J Instrumental Anal 30:917–921
Wang L, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Gong X, Zhang T, Sun H (2019a) Widespread occurrence of bisphenol A in daily clothes and its high exposure risk in humans. Environ Sci Technol 53:7095–7102. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02090
Wang X, Xue Y, Zhe D, Gao A, Guo R, Gao J (2019b) Overview of phthalate plasticizers, current regulations and standards. China Plastics 33:95–105
Wang X, Zhu Q, Yan X, Wang Y, Liao C, Jiang G (2020) A review of organophosphate flame retardants and plasticizers in the environment: analysis, occurrence and risk assessment. Sci Total Environ 731:139071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139071
Wang W, Xiong P, Zhang H, Zhu Q, Liao C, Jiang G (2021) Analysis, occurrence, toxicity and environmental health risks of synthetic phenolic antioxidants: a review. Environ Res 201:111531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111531
Wang X, Okoffo ED, Banks APW, Li Y, Thomas KV, Rauert C, Aylward LL, Mueller JF (2022) Phthalate esters in face masks and associated inhalation exposure risk. J Hazard Mater 423:127001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127001
Wright SL, Rowe D, Reid MJ, Thomas KV, Galloway TS (2015) Bioaccumulation and biological effects of cigarette litter in marine worms. Sci Rep 5:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14119
Wu Y, Venier M, Hites RA (2019) Identification of unusual antioxidants in the natural and built environments. Environ Sci Technol Lett 6:443–447. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00415
Wu Z, He C, Han W, Song J, Li H, Zhang Y, Jing X, Wu W (2020) Exposure pathways, levels and toxicity of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in humans: a review. Environ Res 187:109531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109531
Xia C, Diamond ML, Peaslee GF, Peng H, Blum A, Wang Z, Shalin A, Whitehead HD, Green M, Schwartz-Narbonne H, Yang D, Venier M (2022) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in North American school uniforms. Environ Sci Technol 56:13845–13857. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c02111
Xie H, Han W, Xie Q, Xu T, Zhu M, Chen J (2022) Face mask—a potential source of phthalate exposure for human. J Hazard Mater 422:126848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126848
Xu J (2021) Detection of APEO in textiles by HPLC. J Text I 112:1651–1654. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405000.2020.1835153
Xu Y, Ou Q, Jiao M, Liu G, van der Hoek JP (2022) Identification and quantification of nanoplastics in surface water and groundwater by pyrolysis gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol 56:4988–4997. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07377
Xue J, Liu W, Kannan K (2017) Bisphenols, benzophenones, and bisphenol A diglycidyl ethers in textiles and infant clothing. Environ Sci Technol 51:5279–5286. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00701
Xue B, Zhang L, Li R, Wang Y, Guo J, Yu K, Wang S (2020) Underestimated microplastic pollution derived from fishery activities and “hidden” in deep sediment. Environ Sci Technol 54:2210–2217. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04850
Yan Z, Liu Y, Zhang T, Zhang F, Ren H, Zhang Y (2022) Analysis of microplastics in human feces reveals a correlation between fecal microplastics and inflammatory bowel disease status. Environ Sci Technol 56:414–421. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03924
Young AS, Hauser R, James-Todd TM, Coull BA, Zhu H, Kannan K, Specht AJ, Bliss MS, Allen JG (2021) Impact of “healthier” materials interventions on dust concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and organophosphate esters. Environ Int 150:106151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106151
Yuan B, Tay JH, Papadopoulou E, Haug LS, Padilla-Sánchez JA, de Wit CA (2020) Complex mixtures of chlorinated paraffins found in hand wipes of a Norwegian cohort. Environ Sci Technol Lett 7:198–205. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00090
Zambrano MC, Pawlak JJ, Daystar J, Ankeny M, Venditti RA (2021) Impact of dyes and finishes on the microfibers released on the laundering of cotton knitted fabrics. Environ Pollut 272:115998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115998
Zhang S-X, Chai X-S, Huang B-X, Mai X-X (2015) A robust method for determining water-extractable alkylphenol polyethoxylates in textile products by reaction-based headspace gas chromatography. J Chromatogr A 1406:94–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2015.06.001
Zhang H, Zhou Q, Xie Z, Zhou Y, Tu C, Fu C, Mi W, Ebinghaus R, Christie P, Luo Y (2018) Occurrences of organophosphorus esters and phthalates in the microplastics from the coastal beaches in north China. Sci Total Environ 616:1505–1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.163
Zhang J, Wang L, Kannan K (2020a) Microplastics in house dust from 12 countries and associated human exposure. Environ Int 134:105314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105314
Zhang Q, Sun Y, Zhang Q, Hou J, Wang P, Kong X, Sundell J (2020b) Phthalate exposure in Chinese homes and its association with household consumer products. Sci Total Environ 719:136965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136965
Zhang Q, Xu EG, Li J, Chen Q, Ma L, Zeng EY, Shi H (2020c) A review of microplastics in table salt, drinking water, and air: direct human exposure. Environ Sci Technol 54:3740–3751. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04535
Zhang X, Mell A, Li F, Thaysen C, Musselman B, Tice J, Vukovic D, Rochman C, Helm PA, Jobst KJ (2020) Rapid fingerprinting of source and environmental microplastics using direct analysis in real time-high resolution mass spectrometry. Analy Chim Acta 1100:107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2019.12.005
Zhang Q, Du F, Liang W, Chen Q, Meng J, Shi H (2022) Microfiber fallout during dining and potential human intake. J Hazard Mater 430:128477–128477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128477
Zhao Y, Qiao R, Zhang S, Wang G (2021) Metabolomic profiling reveals the intestinal toxicity of different length of microplastic fibers on zebrafish (Danio rerio). J Hazard Mater 403:123663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123663
Zhao K, Wei Y, Dong J, Zhao P, Wang Y, Pan X, Wang J (2022) Separation and characterization of microplastic and nanoplastic particles in marine environment. Environ Pollut 297:118773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118773
Zheng G, Salamova A (2020) Are melamine and its derivatives the alternatives for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) fabric treatments in infant clothes? Environ Sci Technol 54:10207–10216. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c03035
Zhu H, Al-Bazi MM, Kumosani TA, Kannan K (2020) Occurrence and profiles of organophosphate esters in infant clothing and raw textiles collected from the United States. Environ Sci Technol Lett 7:415–420. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00221
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42077371), the National Key Research and Development project (2022YFC3105900), and the Research Funds of Happiness Flower of the East China Normal University (2021ST2110).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, Y., Chen, Q., Zhang, Q. et al. An Overview of Chemical Additives on (Micro)Plastic Fibers: Occurrence, Release, and Health Risks. Reviews Env.Contamination (formerly:Residue Reviews) 260, 22 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44169-022-00023-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44169-022-00023-9